The combat techniques of both Fairbairn and Applegate were based on combat and police gunfighting experiences and entirely so. Absolutely nothing was derived from target shooting, shooting games like IPSC or cowboy action shooting or the like. The experiences of the two above drew on somewhat different experiences but they did work together for a while.

Applegate went so far as to go back to the well known Wild West gunfighters to try to learn something about what they did and how they managed to survive. Isn't it interesting how the gunfight at the OK Corral keeps coming up in this context? A couple of Hollywood moviemakers actually knew one of the original participants, but that's getting away from the point.

Both Fairbairn and Applegate became trainers and were faced with distinct challenges. Fairbairn was with a very large police department of varied ethnic backgrounds. His aim was to produce policemen who could win gunfights (they had a lot) and avoid shooting themselves at the same time. In other words, safety in gun handling was also considered of primary importance. You should find it interesting that they were equipment mainly with Colt 1911's. They also used .380 Colt pocket autos and some Webley .455 revolvers. His beliefs were based on his first hand experiences as a policeman.

Applegate was training men who only had a short time to learn practical combat pistol shooting and his techniques were based almost entirely on the experiences of men he had trained and then gone into combat, apparently mostly on raids. He was a believer in point shooting, in his own fashion. It seems both pistols and revolvers were used. Both men also were serious about hand to hand combat, both with knives and bare hands.

Other than Fairbairn's insistence that the safeties on automatics not be used, neither spend much time about carrying the pistol or on fast draw but almost all of their effort went into the actual shooting. Reading what they had to say, you will note the lack of narrow dogma. There is nothing about customing pistols (other than Fairbairn's comments about a Fitz New Service revolver), nothing much about ammunition and nothing to speak of about reloading. Their main focus was on hitting the target (the other guy) before he was able to hit you. Accuracy and fast. You can't miss fast enough to make up for anything.

It also sounds like both men lived in worlds where you did not have the luxury to spend a couple of hours each weekend honing your shooting skills. Fairbairn even believed that competitive target shooting was detrimental to your combat skills. This isn't to say he wasn't progressive. Both, I think, believed in using two hands when possible for targets further away. Fairbairn even complained that the sights on stock guns were very poor for that purpose, too. All said, however, it doesn't sound like they either imagined anything like a fast draw contest or having to make a quick draw, especially from concealment. In that respect, their advice is not helpful.

Finally, about that "combat crouch." Neither men invented it as part of an overall combat technique but rather recognized that if you are getting shot at or think that is about to happen, you very naturally crouch. They merely allowed their trainees to do what was natural. Besides, gunfighting was a very dynamic thing and people were expected to be moving around, not standing stock still and upright.

Fairbairn et al. aside, the mechanics themselves demonstrate that the technique is slower. In my opinion, slower is inferior.

Again, the technique may or may not be slower. That is a factor of several other issues that go beyond the chamber condition. But fair enough, your opinion is noted. However, speed is again not the only factor, nor is it even the main factor to some.

Quote:

Again, just because Fairbairn, Cooper, the IDF or USMC used the method bears no relevance on its efficiency.

You are going to have to define efficiency then. I think a proven history of succes does indicate efficiency, and something inefficient would not be practiced, promulgated, and popular among such a diverse population. It may not indicate maximum efficiency, but rarely is maximum efficiency needed. One might be able to make a point about the autoloader being more efficient than the revolver. That in no way negates the effectiveness and the efficiency of the revolver.

Quote:

You can prove it by using a timer.

You seem to be stuck on this speed thing. If speed is your main concern there are many other factors that impact the overall speed of the presentation. Second, should there be a difference in speed, one must also decide if that matters. The fraction of a second we are discussing here probably doesn't matter much, if at all.

Quote:

Best case scenario is that the "israeli draw" is going to slow you down by about 2/10 or more.

OK, let's use that as an example. IF the technique slows you down by 2/10 second, here is what that means. Let's assume a standard drawstroke of 2.0 seconds. If the attack occurs within the 2.0 second or less time frame, you cannot draw so the time doesn't matter. If the attack occurs in the 2.2 seconds or greater time frame, you can chamber, so it doesn't matter. So the only way it matters (in this format) is if the attack occurs within a very specific and very narrow time frame. Consider that there are numerous other factors (type of holster, position of carry, clothing worn, etc.) that can impact the overall drawstroke time to a greater extent, yet that never seems to get as much attention.

Quote:

As for accuracy, after you cycle the slide, your weak hand is chasing the pistol or you are going to fire strong hand only. Either way it is not going to be as accurate as a properly mounted pistol. Add the crouching which means that the body, head (eyes), arms, gun (sights) are moving and the upward swinging style draw stroke and you have a recipe for inaccuracy.

I'm sorry, but this might be the difference between watching a video and actually having some training in a technique. From personal experience I can assure you that this technique does not lack for speed or accuracy. Your pistol should be in a properly mounted position either way, and the accuracy should be the same, there is no difference in final firing position, aiming, etc. The draw stroke is no more of an upward swing than other drawstrokes commonly taught. In fact when I went to Thunder Ranch I found the drawstroke as taught by Clint to be very similar to the drawstroke used in the Israeli Method taught to me.

Quote:

Nothing is more important than hitting your target quickly (preferably before being hit).

We'll have to disagree. While that might be the second most important thing in a gunfight to me, there are a lot of non-gunfight issues that can also be very important.

Quote:

Also, no one I know is just going to fire one round and stop. I will fire no less than 3.

And no one who is properly trained in the Israeili Method will fire one round and stop either. Again, I think you are trying to condemn a long-estableished and well-proven method of fighting based on watching one small segment of one video that may or may not accurately present the issue. If I'm wrong and you do have experience and training in the system, my apologies in advance.

Consider that there are numerous other factors (type of holster, position of carry, clothing worn, etc.) that can impact the overall drawstroke time to a greater extent, yet that never seems to get as much attention.

This is where the meat lies. When measuring a technique's effectiveness vs another technique, you have to use a level playing field. In this case you need to look at the technique from the moment the draw has begun. Nothing else is material in measuring the TECHNIQUE. As I mentioned previously, the mindset is the most important factor for a "gunfight", but we aren't talking about a gunfight. We are talking about the value of one technique -vs- another. Using two people with the same skill level and equipment and drawing at the same time, the "israeli draw" is slower. No ifs ands or buts. So, using that measure the .2 seconds can make the difference between life and death, no matter how long the entire engagement lasted.

Quote:

If the attack occurs within the 2.0 second or less time frame, you cannot draw so the time doesn't matter. If the attack occurs in the 2.2 seconds or greater time frame, you can chamber, so it doesn't matter.

A properly trained marksman can easily draw from concealment in well under 2seconds. Depending on which holster I am using, I can come close to sub 1 second hits at 10 yards (with my competition rig, well under 1 second). So, the .2 does make a huge difference. If you take a round in the breadbasket before your hammer drops, your effectiveness has been diminished. Take one that disrupts the CNS and it's all over. Add the ability to achieve sub .2 splits and you risk being hit twice before your first round is fired. Again, we aren't talking tactics, avoidance, skill disparity or equipment differences. We are talking two people of equal skill beginning their draw at the same time. That is the only accurate way to measure the effectiveness of a technique.

Also, no matter what the situation, tactics or equipment by being the first to hit your target you greatly increase your chance of survival.The only sure way to mitigate a threat is to remove it - permanenty!

As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people. I have been taught by some of the greatest names in shooting. I was a top competitor for several years (sponsored by several big companies), have been an instructor for many years and consultant to Law Enforcement and military units. So, I have the credentials to qualify my statements, I'm not some internet ninja just spouting off based on watching a video.

This is where the meat lies. When measuring a technique's effectiveness vs another technique, you have to use a level playing field.

Only if the level playing field is pertinent. In this case, it isn't as the issue can be addressed from several different points. The situation determines the need, the need defines the effectiveness. I can set up a playing field where the chamber empty carry is more effective than chamber loaded FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

Quote:

A properly trained marksman can easily draw from concealment in well under 2seconds.

Irrelevant, as most people are not properly trained marksmen, and the 2-second time was for example only, just as the 2/10 second to chamber a round is for example only. No matter what the normal timeframe for the presentation, the entire issue becomes important only if the event occurs in the boundaries defined by that tiny fraction of a second, no matter what the times are.

Quote:

We are talking two people of equal skill beginning their draw at the same time. That is the only accurate way to measure the effectiveness of a technique.

We'll disagree. That may be the only way you can accurately measure the effectiveness of a technique, but it certainly isn't the only way to do so, and it is certainly not the way I would do so. I tend to discuss effectiveness based on how well something does what it is supposed to do in the real world. Using that criteria the chamber empty technique is quite effective. History and experience have shown us that.

Quote:

As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people.

So have I. The question is not if you have had any training, but if your training is relevant. So, how much training have you had in the Israeli method?

History shows us nothing if not the folly of holding on to prior beliefs once held sacred that fly in the face of new information - ask Columbus. While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all. Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness. Organizational doctrine sometimes (in the case of the government - always) dictates requirements that are less than ideal or effective. This is the case with carrying an empty chamber and the "israeli draw."

Sure if you pitted someone who was thoroughly trained in the "israeli draw" against a novice with a pistol the expert will prevail. But, not because of technique but because of competency.

Your statements are belief based. Mine are provable and repeatable. C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down. More specifically, a person carrying C&L will be able to hit a target faster than if they used the "israeli draw". That is provable and undisputable. Whether you choose to believe that is a personal choice, many continued to believe the world was flat in spite of proof otherwise. Any factor that occurs before the draw is in the realm of tactics, not technique.

I always assume the person I am confronting is at least as skilled as I am. Therefore .2 seconds is important. A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span. I won't risk taking two rounds just to feel a false sense of "safety" by carrying an empty chamber (if my unit doctrine dictates that carry, then I have no choice). Having BTDT on several occasions and based on the experience of many of my LEO friends, being able to hit the target quickly is the most important factor. Whether you want to make that your prime criteria is up to you.

I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique. I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant. One doesn't have to become an expert in every technique to be able to determine relative effectiveness.

At this point, I will no longer beat this dead horse. The argument has crossed the line from fact to belief and like politics, abortion, religion and gun control once you argue beliefs the debate gets ugly.

Take a look at the professional competition shooters. Todd Jarrett, Rob Leatham, Doug Koenig, et. al., would wear pink tutus and toe shoes if it made them shoot faster. If "israeli draw" was faster, they'd be using it. They will do whatever it takes to win.

They don't use "israeli draw." Not a single one of them. Why? Because it is slower.

No major modern major military force uses this technique. Including (the last time I was around them), the active Israeli force. Can't speak to current Israeli Reservist practices.

No modern LEO agencies use this technique.

No successful competitive shooters use this technique.

No successful major civilian training schools recommend this technique.

No government or private contractor Personal Security Details use this technique.

No US military Special Operations forces (nor any foreign ones that I've worked with) use this technique. Although the occasional cherry asks the question...

There appears to be no paying market demand for this technique at shooting schools since the 1980s.

Folks who are apprehensive about SA Condition One Carry or loaded Glocks appear to like it.

There is a guy named Bob (who bought the Israeli VHS tape out of the discount holster bin) who swears by it.

According to its proponets, against a stopwatch, I should be able to chug an unopened can of beer quicker than someone can chug an already opened one...

I should release a training DVD advocating a one-handed, bladed-body duellist stance; there is bound to be an untapped retro-tactical market (as long as I wear a WWI Imperial German Army Uniform in the video).

alittle off topic, but how can ANYBODY compare the classic 1911 .45 automatic pistol to a effin cannonball? If its soo outdated how come specialist guys shoot em? I could of swore tacomas s.w.a.t still packs a 1911, but i could be wrong. If its soo old school how come alot of the top b.a shooters still shoot em too? I dont know alot about this israeli army draw business, i just carry a gun in a way i figure i can shoot it best. Be it single action revolver with 5 in the wheel, or double action de-cock safety set to safe with 1 in the chamber. Only person i know who takes "firearms are always loaded" attitude to the max is my mom, who carries her bersa with a empty chamber and the safety on. Also one day, i think shortly after my father got done messing with the gun, it somehow automaticly loaded 1 in the chamber.I do not carry a gun for personal defense, i really need to but i also really need to be 21. Instead of carrying a pistol for defense, i usually like to carry a really high level of sitianal awareness when im walking around town or in the car or in a bad place in general.

History shows us nothing if not the folly of holding on to prior beliefs once held sacred that fly in the face of new information - ask Columbus.

First, Columbus was working from a well-known set of facts recognized by most learned men at the time. His error was in how he interpreted those facts. But history also can show us the folly of discarding something that is perfectly acceptable in search of the newest and greatest. But I'm not sure anyone here is hanging on to any prior beliefs, sacred or not. Nobody has said that chamber empty is always better, or that it should always be used, or anything like that. What has been said is that for certain people, in certain situations, it may provide a more effective option for them than chamber loaded.

Quote:

While Fairbairn et al. made a timely contribution to combat pistolcraft, their techniques are not the be all to end all.

Again, I'm not aware of anybody making such a claim. The claim is that just because new techniques have been developed it does not automatically negate the use of older techniques.

Quote:

Just because they use it bears no relevance to effectiveness.

In and of itself, no. But when you take that use and examine it, there can be some relevance to decisions as to effectiveness. If something has been used successfully on a regular basis, one can assume it to be reasonably effective at accomplishing the prescribed goal.

Quote:

Your statements are belief based.

I'll have to call you on that one. AFAIK, each of my statements pertinent to this issue are fact based. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you could show me such a belief based statement regarding the technique and its use.

Quote:

C & L is faster than the "israeli draw" every time hands down.

As I have said so many times before, though, speed is not the only concern here. There are other factors to consider than speed, and even if there is a speed difference it is rarely of any significance in real-world DGU incidents.

Quote:

More specifically, a person carrying C&L will be able to hit a target faster than if they used the "israeli draw". That is provable and undisputable.

Having trained in the method, and having trained and tested many others, I will dispute it as I have seen it not to be true too many times. Yes, for most people with most guns it is an accurate statement., but there are way to many variables that enter into that to consider it an absolute.

Quote:

A well trained marksman will hit the target twice in that time span.

And again, only if the event is framed in that tiny fraction of a second will that matter at all, and there are so many other factors that come into play in the real world that the fraction of a second becomes virtually irrelevant. And while I agree that it is good advice to assume your opponent will be as well- trained as you are (it is advice I give to others myself) it is also a fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners and users are not well-trained, if they are trained at all, and that is something that must be taken into consideration, and thta is something that must be considered when discussing the relative effectiveness of a technique.

Quote:

Having BTDT on several occasions and based on the experience of many of my LEO friends, being able to hit the target quickly is the most important factor. Whether you want to make that your prime criteria is up to you.

Also having BTDT quite a bit myself, I'd disagree. To me the most important factor is not to get hit yourself. Then we can worry about hitting the BG. But that is a belief issue, and I won't say you are wrong for selecting your criteria as you do. I would suggest you are wrong for apparently suggesting that is the only criteria that everyone should consider the most important all the time, however.

Quote:

I was trained in the "israeli draw" by some SAS guys back in the '80's, so I have some experience with the technique.

OK, that should prove my point right there. Why was the SAS using that technique? Because it was best suited for them in their particular situation. And apparently they felt it good enough (effective) that they would train others in its use.

Quote:

I would also argue that the millions of rounds I have fired C&L are relevant.

I agree. BTW, how many rounds did you fire using the other technique, just for comparison? Lots of folks don't carry C&L, they carry first shot DA, with a DA/SA set-up. That is a variable that can entrer into the equation, along with all those other things to consider that go far beyond how fast someone can speed-draw.

Why? What value will that have to this issue? I think that ia the biggest problem whenever this issue comes up. Why don't we look at real-world, reality-based, DGU incidents? Why don't we look at whether or not a fighting technique has proven a success in actual fights? It seems very few want to address the topic from "common citizen self defense" and instead want to rely on artificial competition and theoretical constructs.

I think things are starting to get wildly off-topic here, but I think this post, though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, is apropos of the what is tossed around most of the time when people want to argue against chamber empty/Israeli Method techniques:

Quote:

No major modern major military force uses this technique. Including (the last time I was around them), the active Israeli force. Can't speak to current Israeli Reservist practices.

Both wrong and irrelevant.

Quote:

No modern LEO agencies use this technique.

Again, both wrong and irrelevant.

Quote:

No successful competitive shooters use this technique.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

No successful major civilian training schools recommend this technique.

Depends on how you define major, but there are at least a couple of successful civilian training schools in the U.S. that recommend the technique, as well as several overseas.

Quote:

No government or private contractor Personal Security Details use this technique.

Wrong and irrelevant.

Quote:

No US military Special Operations forces (nor any foreign ones that I've worked with) use this technique. Although the occasional cherry asks the question...

I think the key there is the restriction to those you have worked with, as there are those that do use the technique. Again, though, it is somewhat irrelevant.

Quote:

There appears to be no paying market demand for this technique at shooting schools since the 1980s.

Wrong. Also irrelevant, as I fail to see how demand has anything to do with the issue. There is a paying market demand for Cowboy Shooting, but I don't think anyone would advocate it for personal defense in general (although I have had some students who did uses the SA revolver as a defeensive firearm).

Quote:

Folks who are apprehensive about SA Condition One Carry or loaded Glocks appear to like it.

As do many others who are not apprehensive and/or carry other weapons.

Quote:

There is a guy named Bob (who bought the Israeli VHS tape out of the discount holster bin) who swears by it.

Could be true, and he would be in good company.

Quote:

According to its proponets, against a stopwatch, I should be able to chug an unopened can of beer quicker than someone can chug an already opened one...

Beer chugging is fairly irrelevant, and perhaps you could identify any of its proponents who have suggested that.

Quote:

I should release a training DVD advocating a one-handed, bladed-body duellist stance; there is bound to be an untapped retro-tactical market (as long as I wear a WWI Imperial German Army Uniform in the video).

Perhaps so, but again irrelevant.

So what we have is the usual: a series of arguments that are not true or are of no relevance to a discussion of whether or not the technique still has a place in the modern world of self-defense. Again, I don't say everyone should use it, nor do I say most people should use it. I, and others, take umbrage at those who claim it has no use, and no one should ever use it.

If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions.

Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn.

The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent.

On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree.

Situational awareness is the most critical single factor in a self defense situation.

Speed is also essential in a self defense situation.

The Israeli Army Draw is slower than cocked and locked. That is an irrefutable fact. If you are willing to give up that speed for an unproven outdated mode of carry that is fine, just don't try to convince any reasonable person that that is the best mode of carry.

If you are unwilling to carry cocked and locked with a round in the chamber than get a different gun.

If you are unwilling to carry a traditional double action, a safe action, or a double action only autoloader with a round in the chamber then carry a revolver.

If you are unwilling to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer, they you are indeed foolish.

If you are inadequately trained (you do have training don't you) to carry a gun safely with a round in the chamber then seek additional training and you do not need to carry a gun before completing that training.

Just don't try to convince any trained, proficient, intelligent person that the Israeli Army Draw method is an acceptable method of carry, it has numerous problems.

It is slow. It has deficiencies in close combat situations, it is deficient in confined quarters, and it requires two hands for the most optimum level of proficiency and one cannot guaranty that two hands will be available (I realize in can be done with one hand, you are welcome to show me with someone shooting at you).

When you shot at your last course of instruction using the Israeli Army Draw how did you do? You have trained with this system, have you not? I don't believe so or you would not advocate it.

One last point. Go shoot any quality course LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch etc and let us know how Israeli Army Draw fares in those classes. If you cannot do it in a controlled situation such as a quality gun course what makes you think you can do it in a gunfight.

__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

If you are unwilling to carry a revolver with a round under the hammer, they you are indeed foolish.

What about ole thumb buster six guns with a fixed firing pin? Still i see some merrit in not carrying a round in the chamber of SOME guns some of the time. Like a pocket glock, or any pocket striker fired plastic gun in the actual pocket. I would carry unloaded chamber, but other then that ready to go. Just not much for a nd, havent had one yet and hope i never do. With a proper holster, i would be fine carrying these striker fired pistols 1 in the chamber and magazine topped off. Also anybody who carries a modern double action revolver with a empty chamber under the hammer is a tard-plain and simple.

The revolver comment assumed everyone chooses to carry a modern revolver.

My comment above still applies, just with a different twist. The only reason to carry an older gun without a hammer safety is because it is your only gun and the situation is dire, otherwise if you choose to carry an outmoded revolver you are indeed foolish (I use foolish for the safe of the board, there are other words I would prefer to insert).

Quote:

Still i see some merrit in not carrying a round in the chamber of SOME guns some of the time. Like a pocket glock, or any pocket striker fired plastic gun in the actual pocket. I would carry unloaded chamber, but other then that ready to go.

Then in my opinion carry a different gun or get a pocket holster,and get more training.

I would not carry a Glock in my pocket without a holster. I would not carry a gun if I was only comfortable with condition three.

I stand by the opinion that carrying a gun in condition three is foolish for the reasons stated in my previous post.

Again.

Quote:

One last point. Go shoot any quality course LFI, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch etc and let us know how Israeli Army Draw fares in those classes. If you cannot do it in a controlled situation such as a quality gun course what makes you think you can do it in a gunfight.

Go shoot a course from condition three and let us know how it turns out for you.

__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

If you would be so kind as to refute my points without a subjective "...wrong and irrelevant...", I'll entertain serious consideration for your conclusions.

Please feel free to name some folks or agencies from my list (besides mythical Bob) who think this form of carry is a good idea. The chances will be very good that I've instructed them, been instructed by them, or served in combat with them. We can compare notes 'cause I'm willing to learn.

The beer-chugging reference was a comparative analogy. The more motor skill movements required, the greater propensity for failure at all levels. You will be slower to draw, present, aquire target, and fire. You will also be more likely to fumble presentation and grip under stress. And although the statistical probability of two equally armed opponents conducting a simultaneous quick draw are very low, there is a very high probability that trouble requiring a pistol will erupt close to (if not inside) your personal zone. Try the foolishess you recommend and you will be owned by your opponent.

On balance, I believe that you are simply advocating a really good way to die. I know that you don't believe that, so we'll just have to disagree.

Chindo,

Don't expect david to give references. That ain't his style. He will say for you to research it cause he ain't gonna do it for you (shorthand for saying he has no proof at all.) His idea of carry is a .25 cuase stats show most BGs are scared off by a display of any gun, and thus a .25 is fine and dandy.

About the only ones using chamber empty is the U.S. military, but then they requre magzine empty to.

__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."

Ya know, the one thing on these forums that seems as consistent as the sun rising in the East, is that once sides become polarized in a debate, the shots stop being fired at the issues and the debaters become the target.

Those kinds of shots do damage, regardless if fired from Condition 1 or Condition 3 . Nothing really new has been added to this thread for some time, but some of the insults have grown quite imaginative.

Time to close this one, methinks.

__________________TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does yourpost make you?

I train in earnest, to do the things that I pray in earnest, I'll never have to do.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.